2014-11-13 10:02 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com>: > I like this proposal, mainly because it drops unfortunate potability > implications of amenity=drinking_water.
FWIW, here in Italy we have a lot of public drinking water fountains (in Rome alone there are at least several hundred if not thousands), all obviously with drinking water quality, and "potability implication" in this context is not "unfortunate" but very welcome and intended. Why should we change something that works well in describing with one tag what "people" want to know to something more generic requiring 2 or more tags? If we were to introduce this alternative, our most common map (mapnik carto) would not even be able to show drinking water any more (because we lack the drinkable key). If you cannot be convinced to not introduce a new tag, please make it at least compatible by not putting it into the "amenity" namespace. This way it could be dealt with like in the public transport case with bus stops ;-) My suggestion is to stick with this and use another tag for water that is not drinkable or maybe not drinkable. Information about these latter sources is almost completely pointless in an urban setting. Whoever wants to make an analysis / product with all kind of water sources will have to combine different queries to obtain this data anyway, as has been noted, there are fountains, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, water taps, water wells, rain water collectors, drinking fountains, springs, ... so we will never have one key/tag for all of them. cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
